[Huck Mucus]

There are many arguments made against people who get something for nothing (i.e. those “deadbeats” "on the public dole"). Those arguments can be persuasive. I would like to see those arguments applied to the beneficiaries of estates. Looking at it from the perspective of a decedent who wanted to give his/her money to heirs, you'd think he/she would be "entitled" to give their "hard-earned" money to anyone they want to, thus avoiding a "death tax." But instead, look at if from the point of view of the recipient. What distinguishes an heir from anyone else who gets something for nothing?

Let's take all of the arguments used against all those people who get something for nothing and apply those arguments against heirs. Where do these recipients get their sense of “entitlement”? If those heirs claim to have "earned" it, then why were they not paid during the decedent’s life? And if it was earned, did they pay income tax on those earnings, like everyone else?

In reality, there is a compounding of wealth going on here, as any economist will tell you. And much of that wealth is un-earned. This compounding occurs not only with money, but with education, culture, values, and any number of other benefits we find increasing as we go up the economic ladder.

Without a death tax, the divide grows larger between those who work hard for their money and those, both rich and poor, who don't. Which begs a question: Why do those who work hard for their money continue to support those who don't work so hard on the rich end (heirs), while lambasting those who don't work so hard on the poor end. Both recipients, on both ends, are getting something for nothing.

I think I may have an answer. When you follow the money back, you find, inevitably, that at some point in the past, some of it was not earned. Indeed, some of it was taken, stolen, or obtained through theft of land and property (Indians, for example) or services (slavery, for example, including indentured servitude and general abuse; blacks, Irish, Chinese, etc.). This wealth too was compounded over the generations and the recipients thereof received better educations, contacts and other advantages.

However, we like to wipe the slate clean with each new generation, refusing to make a son pay for the sins of his father. And, we go so far as excusing those sins through contemprorary justifications (it was legal back then, of those Indians attacked each other and us too, or blacks sold blacks, so there!).

So, part of our culture and values is the idea that we start fresh with each generation on the liability end of morality, but not so much on the asset end of immorality. We don’t all start fresh in the working world and bootstrap ourselves up. Even is we work hard, we still stand upon the bones of our fathers, mothers, and all the victims who have gone before.

There is a compounding of cultural values too. The more distance and time we can put between us on how we got this way, the more of an excuse we have to not except responsibility for how it came, and it’s compounding in our favor.

There is hypocrisy here. If the son shall not be held for the sins of the father, why does he get the wealth? Why is he not at least cast in the same bin with the entitlement-sucking welfare queen that is so despised; because he wears a nice suit? If the son gets the wealth, then let him pay for the sins that engendered it. Follow the money.

It does not have to be so draconian. A simple and *partial* redistribution on what was NOT earned would suffice. At the very least, we shouldn’t have to listen to these beneficiaries talk about how they are risk-taking, swashbuckling, rugged individualist captains of industry who bootstrapped themselves into their wealth, alone, with their own hard work and brains; especially when many of them are so quick to whine about the sense of entitlement among those who receive government handouts for nothing. Better to level the playing field a little bit with each new generation and spend our time and money on our children and their educations while we are alive.

When some hear these arguments they just slough it off to “liberal guilt.” But what is liberal guilt, really, other than prima facia evidence of a moral conscience which many conservatives claim to be absent in the liberal mind? Some are awful quick to thump the Bible and claim liberals lack any sense of decency or morals. Hmmmmm. What would Jesus do?

Next time you hear some conservative complaining about those who get something for nothing a few Socratic questions might be in order. There is a lot of luck involved. If you will stipulate to that, then please follow it to its logical conclusion and don’t base arguments on purported character or lack thereof with defending or attacking the lucky and the not so lucky.

[p0nder]

The major difference between welfare queens and heirs is that the person who made the money chose to leave that money to his/her heirs. Death is a bit of an inevitability, so the closest thing people have to maintaining their property after death is to be able to choose who they leave it to.

The heirs may not deserve the money in their own right, but the person who made that money does deserve to give it to whomever he/she pleases.

[Daktoria]

p0nder got it. It's a matter of giving, not receiving. You often see estate battles where elites bestow wealth to people outside of the family, and the family sues over manipulation. Even within the family, children will sue each other for manipulating their parents.

It's not necessarily about rugged individualism either. Wealth can also be bestowed to beneficiaries who have agreeable attitudes.

Anyway, your argument about "liberal guilt" is fascinating. It's comparable to the argument over "Catholic guilt" that was made at the turn of the 20th century when the "social gospel" was taking off.

The interesting part is Catholics tend to be more socially conservative because they understand how social values bridge communities together. What's happened, however, is economics have dominated the political arena, and now, everyone's a pragmatist who liquidates social values down to productivity rather than objectively looking at the rules of engagement.

Without this objective perspective, the cultural divide you mention widens, and people become more envious even of those who win by playing by the rules. In turn, people refuse to play by the rules, and people hold others "guilty before proven innocent" in having to redistribute even wealth fairly earned.

[Huck Mucus]

Wow, thanks for the thoughtful replies.

I think the *only* relevant distinction between the recipients is the one mentioned by pOnder. That is why I would like to see constant reminders of that fact shared with everyone whenever an heir (and we are all heirs, to an extent, standing on the bones of those who went before) points a sanctimonious finger at people on the government dole. I'm not saying those on the government dole shouldn't takes steps to get off it; I'm just arguing against self-righteous hypocrisy from all the other recipients of what I can only conclude is pure luck. How about a little more “There but for the grace of God go I” and a lot less “There but for my own hard work and intelligence go I.”

However, since neither of the first two responses to my OP stooped so low as to get into that kind of an argument, I will move on to the more philosophical points of the responses.

I question the idea that the decedent "deserves" to give his estate to any one he wants. First, I've never been a fan of the idea of deserts, good or bad. In fact, whenever I hear the term “deserves” I think of Little Bill on the floor of Skinny’s saloon, about to get shot, looking up at William Muny and saying something to the effect that he didn’t deserve this, and that he was building a house. William Muny looks down and says “Deserves got nothing to do with it.” And then pulls the trigger. (Unforgiven).

That may sound like I don't believe in justice; and really, are not deserts the end result of justice? I think Clarence Darrow once said there is no justice, in or out of court. While that was my experience after ten years of practicing law, that is not really what I was getting at. Justice might exist in our mind, as a concept, and some shadowy manifestation of it may exist on occasion, and the Socratic version might even live outside the cave somewhere as a perfect template upon which all our notions based; but in this case, in our case, in the case of death, isn’t death itself the deserts? Isn’t death the justice? Isn’t it the pay back for bad, and if the decedent was really as good as so many are made out to be in eulogies, then isn’t he, in death, “going home” to a better place and receiving his deserts? Why is he entitled to more, after death? Now that he is dead, the question is not what would he have wanted but, instead, what does he want now. The answer, quite simply, is he wants nothing.

Why should he get to control his wealth from beyond the grave? We even have estate rules against perpetuities, and long-standing common law policies against doing whatever you want with your wealth from beyond the grave. So, now that you are dead, what of your wishes? Can’t they be against public policy? If public policy is to discourage the receipt of “something for nothing”, and to encourage work and “deserts” and “justice,” then it should at least permit taxation of an estate.

Estates, like corporations, have personality in the law, and to that extent they can fulfill their will; but only with State sanction. If they wanted to avoid the State, they could have gifted prior to death and allowed the recipient to pay income tax in their own right.

I guess what I’m saying is this: Dead people don’t deserve anything. They got what they had coming. Judgment has been served. Only “the living” matter and while we should honor the “feelings” of the loved one’s left behind, and while we should honor the memory and intent of the decedent, we should not allow that intent to be carried out in contravention of the public good, especially if the decedent’s intent results in a compounding of wealth and a compounding of a cultural sense of entitlement, self-righteous hypocrisy from ungrateful-finger pointers, and a lack of compassion, understanding and grace.

Let people exercise their intent while they live, teaching heirs how to live, not only with hard work, but with generosity and the social values we all pay lip service to. Let him create a memory that “deserves” to be honored.

Taxation is often used as an incentive/motivation toward a public good, and in contravention of individual will. I think it would be good for both the public and the individual if we broke the compounding of this sense of entitlement that pervades my country. Leadership on that issue should come from those at the top, not those on the public dole. What’s the incentive for those on the bottom to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they perceive so many of their accusers on the top as having lied about getting there by defying the laws of physics? We all stand on the bones of those that have gone before and some are further up the pile than others.

I’m not saying we all start from scratch with each new generation. Just less whining from those in the cat bird seat.

[Daktoria]

How about a little more “There but for the grace of God go I” and a lot less “There but for my own hard work and intelligence go I.”

You really need to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace

Within Christianity, there are differing conceptions of grace. In particular, Catholics and Protestants use the word in substantially different ways. It has been described as "the watershed that divides Catholicism from Protestantism, Calvinism from Arminianism, modern liberalism from conservatism".[13] Catholic doctrine teaches that God uses the sacraments to facilitate the reception of His grace.[14] Protestants generally do not hold that view.[15] In other words, even without the sacraments, divine grace has been imparted by God to humanity.

That may sound like I don't believe in justice; and really, are not deserts the end result of justice? I think Clarence Darrow once said there is no justice, in or out of court. While that was my experience after ten years of practicing law, that is not really what I was getting at. Justice might exist in our mind, as a concept, and some shadowy manifestation of it may exist on occasion, and the Socratic version might even live outside the cave somewhere as a perfect template upon which all our notions based; but in this case, in our case, in the case of death, isn’t death itself the deserts? Isn’t death the justice? Isn’t it the pay back for bad, and if the decedent was really as good as so many are made out to be in eulogies, then isn’t he, in death, “going home” to a better place and receiving his deserts? Why is he entitled to more, after death? Now that he is dead, the question is not what would he have wanted but, instead, what does he want now. The answer, quite simply, is he wants nothing.

Why should he get to control his wealth from beyond the grave? We even have estate rules against perpetuities, and long-standing common law policies against doing whatever you want with your wealth from beyond the grave. So, now that you are dead, what of your wishes? Can’t they be against public policy? If public policy is to discourage the receipt of “something for nothing”, and to encourage work and “deserts” and “justice,” then it should at least permit taxation of an estate.

Estates, like corporations, have personality in the law, and to that extent they can fulfill their will; but only with State sanction. If they wanted to avoid the State, they could have gifted prior to death and allowed the recipient to pay income tax in their own right.

I guess what I’m saying is this: Dead people don’t deserve anything. They got what they had coming. Judgment has been served. Only “the living” matter and while we should honor the “feelings” of the loved one’s left behind, and while we should honor the memory and intent of the decedent, we should not allow that intent to be carried out in contravention of the public good, especially if the decedent’s intent results in a compounding of wealth and a compounding of a cultural sense of entitlement, self-righteous hypocrisy from ungrateful-finger pointers, and a lack of compassion, understanding and grace.

Let people exercise their intent while they live, teaching heirs how to live, not only with hard work, but with generosity and the social values we all pay lip service to. Let him create a memory that “deserves” to be honored.

Memory is finalized through "last will and testament". Without that, the dead have no guarantee that their estate will respect their achievements. It creates a conflict of interest where people don't have a reason to care about society's future because the future of society doesn't include them.

Honor is not always disposed respectfully. It can also be disposed popularly where people who sacrifice are forgotten and exploited. Estates ensure that this forgetfulness and exploitation do not happen.

Taxation is often used as an incentive/motivation toward a public good, and in contravention of individual will. I think it would be good for both the public and the individual if we broke the compounding of this sense of entitlement that pervades my country. Leadership on that issue should come from those at the top, not those on the public dole. What’s the incentive for those on the bottom to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they perceive so many of their accusers on the top as having lied about getting there by defying the laws of physics? We all stand on the bones of those that have gone before and some are further up the pile than others.

I’m not saying we all start from scratch with each new generation. Just less whining from those in the cat bird seat.

If you want to prevent compounding, then read my signature. You mentioned social values before. Yes, you can't throw money at the problem in order to get people to respect what each other is entitled to.

[p0nder]

I guess what I’m saying is this: Dead people don’t deserve anything. They got what they had coming. Judgment has been served. Only “the living” matter and while we should honor the “feelings” of the loved one’s left behind, and while we should honor the memory and intent of the decedent, we should not allow that intent to be carried out in contravention of the public good, especially if the decedent’s intent results in a compounding of wealth and a compounding of a cultural sense of entitlement, self-righteous hypocrisy from ungrateful-finger pointers, and a lack of compassion, understanding and grace.

Again, the logic behind inheritance is the maintenance of the continuity of someone's belongings. Until a solution to the problem of morality is found, the closest thing we can do to allow the dead to continue possessing their wealth is to allow them to choose to whom that wealth will be given.

The problem with death taxes or abolishing inheritance altogether is that such moves would be considered theft (or at least unfair taxation) by the dead person were he/she still alive.

[Baff]

I am bias in that I have the expectation of an inheritance and that I have never signed on despite many unemployed periods.

I think there are a few key differences between inheritance and state assistance.


One is that this is not public money. No one has any right to say what happens to something they have not contributed towards.
The dole on the otherhand is a fund to which we have all paid in. We are all affected by how this money is spent.

Another would be the rights of the individual to use his own money in any way he wishes so long as that does no harm to another.
Money that is given to me, would not be given to you if it wasn't given to me.
It would be spent by my mother before she dies on whatever fun she wants to cram in first.

So it's not even as if anyone else stands to gain by my loss. Or at least the only person who does is the very same person who makes the decision in the first place.


Another is free choice.
I am not free to choose whether or not I give money to people on the dole in general or indeed any specific person on the dole. Nor am I free to decide how much.
My mother on the otherhand is entirely free to make these decisions.

And finally, there is motivation.
The dole does not motivate me to get a job and engage in socially productive activities.
The desire to provide an inheritance for my children however, does.

If I work twice as hard so that my children have to work half as hard or not at all, what's wrong with this?
Is this any worse than my working twice as hard so that my wife can stay at home?

In the end these are all personal decisions. Nothing with any requirement for the state to be involved with.
Basic respect for privacy, especially during hoghly emotive and sensetive periods such as a bereavement in the family are ones that other people would be foolish to stick their noses into.

[Stormsmith]

I livewhere house prices are amongst the highest in the country. A few years ago one of the larger national parties elected a new leader. One of his first campaign - for - PM promises was an increase in government revenue by way of death taxes for estates over $1,000,000 - IIRC. No one much like that idea, but it was pointed out that the left coast was spending a disproportionate amount of its income on housing, and had less cash to buy toys and goodies, or take nice vacations, unlike the rest of Canadians. At a minimum we collectively felt paying a ridiculous amount of probate fees - death taxes and the like was robbery: we couldn't give our kids a break after our deaths, nor could we get a break when our parents die.

He dropped that idea in a hurry.

[Someone5]

Again, the logic behind inheritance is the maintenance of the continuity of someone's belongings. Until a solution to the problem of morality is found, the closest thing we can do to allow the dead to continue possessing their wealth is to allow them to choose to whom that wealth will be given.

The problem with death taxes or abolishing inheritance altogether is that such moves would be considered theft (or at least unfair taxation) by the dead person were he/she still alive.

Incidentally, if the state confiscates my property after I'm dead, I don't really care. Because, you know, I'd be dead and well beyond giving a shit. Any relatives of mine are no more deserving of the product of my labor than anyone else.